Pre-Inquiry Meeting
1000 Tuesday 9 April 2013
Buckfastleigh Town Hall
Appeal Ref: APP/J1155/A/12/2185633
Whitecleave Quarry, Plymouth Road/Strode Road, Buckfastleigh, Devon
•
•
•
•
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The appeal is made by MVV Environment Devonport Ltd against the decision of Devon
County Council.
The application, Devon County Council Ref.DCC/3242/2011, dated 8 July 2011, was
refused by notice dated 3 May 2012.
The development proposed is construction and operation of materials recovery facility
for inert construction and demolition waste and construction and operation of
incinerator bottom ash processing facility together with associated site engineering and
infrastructure.
Agenda
1.
Introduction
The Inspector, John Woolcock, introduced himself and stated that he had
been appointed by the Secretary of State to hold an Inquiry and to
determine this appeal.
Appearances at the PIM
For appellant
Mark Westmoreland Smith of Counsel
Instructed by Claire Brook Dickinson Dees LLP
For Devon County Council
Rupert Warren QC
Instructed by the Solicitor, Devon County Council (DCC)
For Rule (6)6 party Buckfastleigh Community Forum (BCF)
Charlie Hopkins non-practising barrister
2.
Purpose of the Pre-Inquiry Meeting
The Inspector outlined that the purpose of the PIM was to ensure the
smooth running of the Inquiry and to save Inquiry time by dealing with
procedural and administrative matters at an early stage. He stressed that
he would not consider the merits of the proposal which is for the Inquiry
in due course.
He also stated that the inability to attend the PIM, or to be represented at
it, would in no way be prejudicial to any right to make representations or
appear at the Inquiry itself.
1
3.
Environmental Statement
The application was accompanied by an ES and supplementary
information had been submitted. The appellant indicated that a further
addendum is being prepared which would be available on 19 April and
would be subject to a 21 consultation period with any representations to
be submitted to PINS by 10 May [subject to consultation with Case
Officer].
The Council was content that this would not affect the
programming for the Inquiry and suggested that the further technical
work, including revised modelling, currently underway concerning the
Council’s first reason for refusal might also be usefully included in the
proposed addendum. BCF expressed some concern about the timing and
content, especially concerning hydrology, but would not be in a position to
comment until the new data was available. However, BCF thought it likely
that it would be able to confirm its views during the 21 day consultation
period.
The Inspector indicated that he is required to take into account the
Environmental Information, which is the ES/Supp Info and comments on
it, and evidence adduced at the Inquiry. At the end of that process he will
come to a conclusion about the adequacy of the environmental
information.
The Inspector was advised at the PIM that any concerns about the ES will
be addressed in evidence to the Inquiry and that no one is at this stage
formally seeking additional information under the Regulations.
4.
Statements of Case
The Inspector has received and read statements of case by
- Appellant
- Council
- BCF
If parties are relying on any documents he stressed the need to advise
other parties at early stage.
5.
Letters of representation
The Inspector has all letters of representation made to the Council about
the application – but has not read them all yet and will do so during the
course of the Inquiry. He also has representations made at the appeal
stage. The Folder containing third party submissions will be available for
inspection at the Inquiry and the Inspector will seek confirmation that the
parties have seen these.
6.
Main issues
The Inspector indicated that he will outline his preliminary views about the
main issues in the case in his opening announcements when the Inquiry
opens on 25 June, after he has read proofs of evidence. He might refine
them on the basis of the evidence before the Inquiry.
2
7.
Statement of Common Ground
The Inspector has seen an unsigned and undated copy of Statement of
Common Ground between the Council and appellant. It was confirmed at
the PIM that this is agreed. The Inspector requested an update to the
SoCG to include a list of plans that were before the Council when it
determined the application [is list in Decision Notice correct? Re Drawing
No.PA03 Rev B and PA13]. New plans were foreshadowed as a result of
the ongoing technical work and the SoCG should include a plans list for
any amendments or alterations proposed to be submitted at the appeal
stage.
The Inspector would hear submissions about dealing with the appeal on
the basis of an amended scheme at the opening of the Inquiry. So as to
save time at the Inquiry the Inspector requested that the parties give
consideration to this and if possible submit views in writing in advance
[concerning the application of the Wheatcroft principles in the
circumstances which arise in this case].
The Inspector also requested that the SoCG include full wording for
suggested conditions so as to save time at the without prejudice
discussion about possible conditions at the Inquiry.
The appellant and BCF are also proposing to prepare a SoCG.
An obligation by way of agreement [if possible and unilateral undertaking
if not] is proposed. Final drafts of any obligation relied upon must be
made available with the proofs of evidence and a signed copy submitted
before the close of the Inquiry.
8.
Participants at the Inquiry
Appellant
Advocate
Mark Westmoreland Smith of Counsel
Witnesses
Ms Georgi Gilpin (Company)
Mr Neil Rugg (Transport)
Mr Alf Maneylaws (Noise)
Dr Garry Gray (Air quality)
[there are on going discussions with the Council
about transport, noise and air quality]
Mr Ryan Mellor (Ecology)
Mr Jon Robinson (Hydrology/hydrogeology)
[depending on BCF submissions]
Mr Roger Miles (Planning and alternative sites)
Council
Advocate
Rupert Warren QC
Witnesses
Mr Ted Keegan (Planning policy)
Mr Leyton Davies (Noise)
Mr Darran Kitchener (Traffic and transportation)
Mr Richard Hill (Dust/air quality)
3
[Council advised that it may not be necessary to
call all witnesses depending on outcome of
ongoing technical work]
BCF
Advocate :
Witnesses
Charlie Hopkins
Professor John Altringham (Bats and SAC)
John Day (other ecology)
Professor (retired) Tim Drey (Chemistry of IBA)
Dr Mike Rodger (Health impacts and HIA)
Denise Rudgley Mayor of Buckfastleigh Town Council
or other representative from the Town Council (Town
Council issues)
BCF representative to be confirmed (Community
concerns)
Hydrology/hydrogeology to be confirmed
Others
Email from Cllr. Philip Vogel, Executive Member Housing and
Planning Portfolio, Teignbridge District Council
Email from Daniel and Susan Murphy, local residents
BCF is aware of some local businesses and employers, and local residents
who wish to give evidence to the Inquiry. BCF offered to assist in
coordinating details about those who wish to make a statement to the
Inquiry. The Inspector is grateful for the assistance and suggested that
the attached form might assist in compiling names, contact details etc.
This would save time during the opening announcements at the Inquiry.
9.
Structure of the Inquiry
After opening announcements the Inspector will hear brief opening
statements from the appellant, the Council, and BCF. These should be no
longer than 15 minutes and should be presented to an open session of the
Inquiry, but should also be available in writing.
It was agreed at the PIM that the Inquiry would hear witnesses for the
Council, then for the appellant, those of BCF, before finally hearing any
interested persons. This was agreed subject to the possibility of the
appellant recalling Mr Miles if necessary. An agreed likely programme for
the Inquiry should be submitted for the Inspector to consider no later than
11 June. This should include the names of witnesses, the order that they
would be called, the subject to be covered in their evidence, and a time
estimate for evidence-in-chief. Time likely to be required for crossexamination should also be indicated if possible. A timetabling session
will be included as part of the Inspector’s opening announcements on 25
June.
There will be a discussion about possible conditions which will be without
prejudice to the case argued by those who take part in the discussion.
This will not undermine their case and any questions the Inspector might
have about possible conditions will be for clarification and will not be
prejudicial to his determination of the appeal on its planning merits. The
4
Inspector will, again on a without-prejudice basis, comment on the
wording of suggested conditions and circulate these in advance of the
Inquiry so as to save Inquiry time. He would like the views in writing of
all parties about the need for conditions and their wording. Where
possible these should be agreed, and if not, state clearly any
disagreements or suggested alternative wording.
After the discussion about conditions and any planning obligations the
Inspector will invite closing submissions from BCF, the Council and finally
the appellant. These should be presented to an open session of the
Inquiry, but should also be available in writing.
The Inspector will then make arrangements for an accompanied site visit.
The parties should give some advance thought to an itinerary for the site
visit and whether it would be possible for him to see some aspects
unaccompanied.1 If parties wish the Inquiry to visit particular sites in
addition to the appeal site and surrounds then an early indication would
assist programming.
The Inspector will not be able to hear
representations or evidence on the site visit itself. Those attending will
only be allowed to point out physical features. If it is necessary to visit
other sites there might be advantages in doing so early in the proceedings
so that any questions by any party or the Inspector can be dealt with in
an open session of the Inquiry.
The Inquiry is not the appropriate forum for challenging the merits of
current and emerging Government policy or for debate on the direction of
future policy. These are matters for consultation and discussion outside
the scope of the present appeal. On the other hand, the Inspector will
welcome views on how the proposal squares with relevant policies.
10.
Programming and efficient use of Inquiry time
Although there will be no formal appointment of a programme officer, Mr
Lloyd Orriel, who is a Graduate Trainee from DCC, will provide
administrative assistance to the Inquiry as Admin Officer. His contact
details are
Lloyd.Orriel@devon.gov.uk
phone number – 01392 383365
His main responsibilities, under the Inspector’s direction, will include:
•
Keeping records of attendance at the Inquiry;
•
Co-ordinating the submission of evidence;
•
Maintaining the Inquiry library; and
•
Acting as the point of contact between Inquiry participants and the
Inspector outside the formal proceedings.
However, his involvement in the Inquiry will be confined to such
procedural matters, and the Admin Officer will play no part in the
Inspector’s decision on the appeal.
1
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/pins/gpa_13.pdf
5
For the time being the Case Officer will continue to be the main point of
contact. After the start of the Inquiry all queries should be made to the
Admin Officer.
PINS case officer is Leanne Palmer, Room 3/20,
telephone 0303 444 5471.
Email Leanne.Palmer@pins.gsi.gov.uk
11.
Inquiry venue and accommodation requirements
Buckfastleigh Town Hall
It was considered at the PIM that this would be convenient for all
participants. A public address system will be provided.
There will be a retiring room for the Inspector, and meeting rooms for the
main parties.
There were no indications at this stage about any requirements for
technical equipment – photocopying, projectors etc but if likely to be
needed requirements should be discussed directly with the caretaker for
the building.
There are no indications at this stage about any specific media interest –
such as any request for filming or recording. The Inspector asked to be
advised if and when any arise and indicated that he would deal with this
as part of the opening for the Inquiry.
12.
Inquiry dates and sitting times
The Inquiry will open 1000 Tuesday 25 June 2013. It is scheduled to sit
for three weeks, but a fourth week has been set aside if required. There
is some doubt about the Inspector’s availability on Friday 5 July. It was
agreed to see how the Inquiry was progressing at the end of the first
week to see whether it should sit on 5 July. The Inspector indicated that
time would be made available in the programme for closing submissions
to be prepared in writing. Sitting hours generally 1000 – 1700 with break
for one hour at lunch, along with mid-morning and mid-afternoon short
breaks. Fridays the Inquiry would aim to sit from 0930 to 1330.
13.
Outline Inquiry timetable
When opening the Inquiry the Inspector will ask for estimates of the time
for evidence, including cross-examination – however, it would be helpful
to have some idea as to likely timetable and to be aware of any restricted
availability of witnesses. Request for Admin Officer to assist in the
coordination of draft programme [see attached form].
A timetabling session would be held as part of opening announcements.
6
The Inspector stressed that the programme will always remain provisional
and be subject to change. Through the Case Officer and Admin Officer the
Inspector will endeavour to keep parties informed as to progress, and
wherever possible will try to fit in with any constraints. But the Inquiry
must be run expeditiously, and it will be up to parties to be available when
required. If they are not, then the Inquiry will proceed without them.
14.
Proofs of evidence and other statements
No later than 4 weeks before start of Inquiry 28 May 2013 – summary if
more than 1500 words – use of metric units – all paragraphs numbered
and all pages included appendices numbered – normally not accept any
documents after that date
Rebuttal proofs – The Inspector was not inviting any but he is
aware that in some cases they can save Inquiry time – only where
justified. Rebuttals must be confined to evidence addressing specified
evidence submitted by other parties. They must not be used to introduce
new matters that could have been covered in main proofs of evidence.
Comments on the evidence of other parties may be made in opening or
closing submissions.
If any reliance is to be placed on a planning obligation it must be
completed, signed and dated before the Inquiry closes – A final draft
should be submitted along with proofs of evidence.
Any legal submissions should be in writing before end of Inquiry and
include copies of any judgements.
Electronic versions of final draft of suggested conditions and closing
submissions to be emailed to Case Officer.
15.
Documents
Core Documents prefixed by CD - co-ordinated by the Appellant in
conjunction with other parties.
Those presenting evidence should note that the Inspector’s decision will
be based on the evidence and submissions put to him at the Inquiry. He
will not be doing his own research, or looking up references in libraries or
online. If parties consider it necessary for him to see material beyond
what is set out in their proofs, it is up to them to provide it in hard copy.
Simple references to published reports etc or links to web sites are not
sufficient, especially as web sites can be changed or deleted at any time.
Number of hard copies to be available at Inquiry – at least 1 for each
party, 1 for library, 1 for witness table, 1 for Inspector.
Hard copies of evidence must be sent to arrive not later than the specified
dates. It will not suffice to send them electronically on the day with hard
copies to follow. The Inspector cannot guarantee to have read prior to the
Inquiry any evidence submitted late. Late submission may necessitate
7
adjournment of the Inquiry, and may give rise to applications for costs
against the party responsible.
Each party should produce a list of its documents up to the beginning of
the Inquiry with copies for the Inspector and Admin Officer, on paper and
in electronic form. Inquiry Documents subsequently submitted will be
numbered sequentially.
Normally no evidence or other material will be accepted after the close of
the Inquiry.
17.
Any other business and questions
The Inspector raised 3 other matters
He asked for an update about position concerning an Environmental
Permit (EP) from the Environment Agency (EA). The appellant advised
that discussions had taken place with the EA but that no application for an
EP has been made pending the outcome of this appeal. The Inspector
asked for parties to check correspondence from EA to ensure that
sufficient information was available [EA email dated 19 November 2012
states that if an application for an EP was received the EA would regulate
dust and odour within the permit area].
The Inspector asked for confirmation about the description of the
proposal, which is described differently on the Council’s Decision Notice
from that which appears on the application form.
The postcode of the appeal site was given as TQ11 0DQ.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Just to confirm dates/exchange for submission of documents
1700 Tuesday 28 May 2013
Deadline for submission of proofs
Revised SOCG including plans lists and suggested conditions
Final draft of any s106 obligation
1700 Tuesday 11 June 2013
Any rebuttal proofs
Suggestions for site visit/draft itinerary
Draft programme/timetable for Inquiry
Copy of Council’s notification letter about the date, time and venue for the
Inquiry
John Woolcock
Inspector
10 April 2013
8